Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501400
Original file (ND0501400.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-AA, USN
Docket No. ND05-01400

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20050825. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant designated Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs as the representative on the DD Form 293.

 Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060614. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain General (Under Honorable Conditions) by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more .

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

 Applicant’s and representatives issues, as stated on the application and/or attached document/letter:

 “UPON MY MANY ATTEMPTS TO TRY AND RE-ENLIST INTO THE US NAVY, I WAS NOT ALLOWED DO SO . I WAS SIMPLY ALLOWED TO EXTEND MY TOUR OF DUTIES . I TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO SPEAK TO MY SUPERIORS AND TRY TO RE-ENLIST . I WAS ONLY A LLOWED TO EXTEND . I FELT VERY ISOLATED, TO THE FACT, THAT TRYING TO RE-ENLIST INTO THE BRANCH OF SERVICE THAT I LOVED AND SERVED ADMIRALLY, THOUGH MY EFFORTS WERE FRUITLESS, NONE OF MY SUPER I ORS WOULD HELP ME NOR WOULD THEY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS TO WHY WAS I ONLY ALLOWED TO EXTEND AND NOT RE-ENLIST . I FELT VERY ISOLATED AND LEFT . NO ONE EVER EXPLAINED TO ME WHY.

AFTER REPORTING BACK, ON MY OWN ACCORD, I TRIED DILIGENTLY TO EXPLAIN MY REASONS OF ISOLATION, MY REASONS FOR LEAVING, AND YET HOPEFULLY STILL TRY AND GET ANSWERS, I WAS AGAIN SHUNNED AND DENIED MY RIGHT TO EXPLAIN MY SIDE OF THE STORY . I DO NOT FEEL THAT MY RIGHTS WERE FAIRLY AWARDED BEFORE MY DEPARTURE, NOR, WERE THEY AFFORDED ME UPON MY RETURN . ALL I WANTED WAS TO SERVE MY COUNTRY AS A CAREER MAN, AND AS I FEEL, WAS FORCED OUT OF THE NAVY, MY DEEPEST LOVE.

I WAS AN OUT S TAN D ING NAVY MAN . I SERVED MY COUNTRY TO ITS FINEST . I TRIED VERY MUCH TO CONTINUE IN DOING SO AND WAS NOT AFFORDED THIS RIGHT . TO THIS DAY, I DO NOT KNOW WHY . UNFORTUNATEL Y, I PROBUALLY NEVER WILL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE.”

 Submitted by Applicant subsequent to submission of application:

 “ In reference to your letter NDO5-01400/HER dated 01/1912006, I have included further documentation concerning the circ u mstances of my discharge,

I feel I successfully completed my original service obligation under honorable conditions . I extended for an additional year past my original 4-year enlistment . All of the problems concerning my general discharge occurred after the first 4 years.

I was trying to reenlist arid was allowed to only extend for a year at a Lime . I wanted to reenlist, but was denied from doing so.

I DID complete my first and original enlistment successfully and under honorable conditions . I believe I should have received a DD-214 under honorable conditions for my first 4-years of service.

Please include my enclosed documentation when making your decision.

Thank you very much for your time and service to our country.”
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214
Seventeen pages from Applicant’s service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19991013 - 19991020      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19991021             Date of Discharge: 20041105

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 05 00 15 (Does not exclude lost time.)
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):
         Unauthorized absence: 42 days
         Confinement:              None

 Age at Entry: 18

 Years Contracted: 4 (12 month extension)

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 49

 Highest Rate: FN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NA*                                    Behavior: NA*             OTA: NA*

 Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal, Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist (ESWS)
* Not Available


Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/ MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

021003:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 - Failure to obey order or regulation.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 123a: Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: (Debt, dishonorably failing to pay).
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 45 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

040408:  NJP. No further information found in service record. [Extracted from NAVPERS 1070/604, Awards.]

 040830:  Applicant to unauthorized absence at 0700 on 040830.

040929:  Applicant declared a deserter.

 041011:  Applicant from unauthorized absence at 0700 on 041011 (42 days/surrendered). EAOS changed to December 1, 2004.
041014:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence.
 Violation of UCMJ, Article 123a: Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds.
          Award: Forfeiture of $668.85 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E-2. No indication of appeal in the record.

041022:  Commanding Officer, Assault Craft Unit FOUR directed the Applicant's discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more, authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-140. [Extracted from supporting documents submitted by the Applicant.]

041105:  DD Form 214: Applicant discharged general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious - absent without leave - 30 days or more, authority: MILPERSMAN 1910-142.

Service Record contained a partial Administrative Discharge package.
Service Record was missing elements of the Summary of Service.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 20041105 by reason of misconduct due to commission of serious offense - absent without leave - 30 days or more (A and B) with a service characterization of general (under honorable conditions). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (E).

 The Applicant bears the burden of establishing his issues through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the Applicant produced any evidence, that the discharge was not proper and equitable. The record contains a partial administrative discharge package. The Board presumed the Applicant was notified of the intended recommendation for discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, was advised of his rights and provided the opportunity to consult with counsel, and elected or waived each right. Relief denied.
When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. A general discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 92, 123a (2 specs), 134, and 86 (42 days) of the UCMJ. All of these violations are considered serious offenses. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant contends that his problems in the Navy resulted because he was not allowed to re-enlist and because he felt isolated. While he may feel that his feelings of isolation were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record clearly reflects his willful misconduct and demonstrated he was unfit for further service. The evidence of record did not show that the Applicant was either not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Relief denied.

The Applicant contends that he successfully completed his “original service obligation under honorable conditions.” He contends that he “extended for an additional year” past his original four year enlistment and that his problems occurred after the first four years. The Applicant enlisted 991021 with a four-year contract and a 12-month extension. His original contract was a five-year commitment; the additional obligation incurred in response to a guarantee of Air Traffic Controller “A” School. The Applicant’s “original service obligation” was five years. Additionally, the Applicant received nonjudicial punishment for three serious offenses on 021003. He had less than three years of service at that point. Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), re-issued October 2002, effective 22 Aug 02 until 25 April 05 Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86 - absence without leave more than 30 days; Article 92 – failure to obey order or regulation; Article 123a – checks, insufficient funds, intent to deceive; and Article 134 – debt, dishonorably failing to pay.
C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

 D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

 E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs .


PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .
The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00618

    Original file (ND04-00618.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    No indication of appeal in the record.950622: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with a least favorable characterization of under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.950622: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.950726: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00867

    Original file (ND03-00867.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00867 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030424. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Therefore, a documentary review was conducted, and the Applicant is not eligible for further review by this Board Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20040728.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551

    Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501341

    Original file (ND0501341.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Specification: In that Postal Clerk Third Class M_ A. S_(Applicant), U.S. Navy, FISC Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on active duty, did on or about 0715 040830 without authority absent himself from...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01075

    Original file (ND01-01075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While I was in the military I received two good conducts and two honorable discharge. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 880817 - 920813 HON USN 920814 - 960523 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880815 - 880816 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960524 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01456

    Original file (ND04-01456.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Award: Administrative separation.980928: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.Applicant’s discharge package missing from service record PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501468

    Original file (ND0501468.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    State of Oregon Dental Forms be signed so I can continue my education and work in Dental. Based on the processing guidelines of MILPERSMAN article 1910-140 for Pattern of Misconduct, the service member was administratively separated on 040910 with a “General Discharge” characterization of service.” PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The Applicant was discharged on 20040910 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00181

    Original file (ND00-00181.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00181 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 991118, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01089

    Original file (MD03-01089.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01089 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030605. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION At this time, the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation for the Board to consider an upgrade.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01407

    Original file (ND03-01407.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant states his discharge was based on one isolated incident in “12 years.” Despite a servicemember’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses, even though isolated, warrant separation from the naval service in order to maintain proper order and discipline. The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is...